> Only you don't get to decide what's a "fundamental human right" for others If you accept the concept of "fundamental human rights", then it seems to me that

> Only you don't get to decide what's a "fundamental human right" for others If you accept the concept of "fundamental human rights", then it seems to me that they are rights that are derived from the simple fact of being a human, regardless of what your culture or rulers currently impose on you, and which you accept axiomatically. That is what makes them "fundamental", rather than just the (larger) set of normal rights afforded to you by your state. I could easily see things like having the right to not be held as a slave as belonging to such a fundamental set. > Not to mention that what's "free speech" is not clear cut, most EU countries for example have totally different laws than the US I think the issue is more about how much trespassing on the freedom of speech is allowed by different jurisdictions. Even in Europe very few argue that holocaust denial laws, or blasphemy laws are not a trespass on freedom of speech. It is just that many accept them. And many, including myself, do not, because it has had a chilling effect of public discourse on many important issues.